Saturday, 24 November 2018

It's about the doctrine, it always was and remains so!

It's about doctrine.

The Social Kingship of Christ.

Collegiality.

Ecumenism.

There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. 

The Church of Christ IS, the Catholic Church, Christ does not "subsist" in any other. 

Those who may be saved outside of the Church, are saved through Her and cannot ever be known to us and can only be known to God. God is not bound by His sacraments, we are. God can work through anyone, clearly, He works in non-Catholics converts or they would not convert, but no other church is the true Church.

There is no other way. Jesus is the "Way, the Truth and the Life," and "No one comes to the Father," except through Him. Period!

One group at the table is Catholic. One is not.

Related image

Communiqué from the General House of the Society of Saint Pius X concerning the Nov. 22, 2018 meeting between Cardinal Ladaria and Fr. Pagliarani
On Thursday, November 22, 2018, Fr. David Pagliarani, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, travelled to Rome at the invitation of Cardinal Luis Ladaria Ferrer, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He was accompanied by Fr. Emmanuel du Chalard. Cardinal Ladaria was assisted by Archbishop Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei.
The meeting took place in the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Its purpose was to allow Cardinal Ladaria and Fr. Pagliarani to meet for the first time and together to take stock of the relations between the Holy See and the Society of Saint Pius X since the election of its new Superior General last July.
During the meeting with the Roman authorities, it was recalled that the fundamental problem is actually doctrinal, and neither the Society nor Rome can escape this fact. Because of this irreducible doctrinal divergence, for the past seven years, no attempt to compose a draft of a doctrinal statement acceptable to both parties has succeeded. This is why the doctrinal question remains absolutely essential.
The Holy See says the same when it solemnly declares that no canonical status can be established for the Society until after the signing of a doctrinal document.
Therefore, everything impels the Society to resume theological discussions with the awareness that the Good Lord does not necessarily ask the Society to convince its interlocutors, but rather to bear unconditional witness to the faith in the sight of the Church.
The future of the Society is in the hands of Providence and the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, as is demonstrated by its whole history, from the Society's foundation to this day.
The members of the Society want nothing else but to serve the Church and to cooperate effectively in her regeneration, to the point of giving their lives for her triumph if necessary. But they can choose neither the manner, nor the terms, nor the moment of what belongs to God alone.
Menzingen, November 23, 2018

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Yup, the Church of Christ "subsisting" the Catholic Church is a novelty nonsense embraced by Benedict XVI/Joseph Ratzinger. He has to, a firm believer of Modernist doctrines and the Second Vatican Council as having done the right thing to defy Christ.

jim norwood said...

It seems to me that Archbishop Lefebre was excommunicated for the crime of being faithful to the 1900 year teachings of the Catholic Church. Meanwhile Bishops who under the cover of Vatican11, did the opposite by introducing errors that contradicted 1900 year old teachings into the Church, well the Pope did nothing and looked the other way.
http://sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/Apologia/

Catholic Mission said...

NOVEMBER 25, 2018
Vatican-SSPX doctrinal talks second round : clarification on two points needed

Fr.Davide Pagliarani, the new Superior General of the SSPX must know that in doctrinal talks Cardinal Luiz Ladaria and Archbishop Guido Pozzo have a lot to hide.Their position is false and not Catholic. They can only get away through deception.
This is why they have not responded to numerous posts on this blog many addressed to them directly and also e-mailed to them.
The SSPX must be represented in these talks by someone who was responsible-or the person responsible- for the excellent SSPX General Chapter Statement 2012.They had it right. I don't think it was Bishop Bernard Fellay since he still interprets Vatican Council II as a rupture with the strict interpretation of EENS.He also interprets UR 3 and LG 8 as a rupture with EENS.
Fr.Jean Marie Gleize who was present at the last failed talks, is a Cushingite who uses the same irrational premise and inference as Archbishop Pozzo. He makes the same mistake as the CDF and Ecclesia Dei.Fr.Gleize would be part of the problem.He has never commented on these blog posts addressed to him. It is the same with Fr. Francois Laisney who should be kept far away from these talks. Since they both are in doctrinal and theological error and when it is pointed out to them they cannot respond.
The aim of the talks must be to approve a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II in harmony with the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the past ecclesiology of the Church.Then everything will fall into place.The ecclesiology of the Church before and after Vatican Council II will be the same on traditional salvation theology.With the old ecclesiology intact there can only be an ecumenism of return.It would be a return to the past traditional theology.The new theology would automatically become obsolete with the error identified. There would only be traditional Mission doctrine based on a rational interpretation of Vatican Council II which would not be a rupture with the old ecclesiology and the traditional strict interpretation of EENS. Upon the past ecclesiology would be be proclaimed the Social Reign of Christ the King and the non separation of Church and State.
Collegiality will not be an issue when the theology and ecclesiology of the Church is once again orthodox. Religious liberty will not be an issue when a Catholic State with the ecclesiology being traditional is the ideal.
For all this to happen,the baptism of desire (BOD),baptism of blood ( BOB) and invincible ignorance (I.I) must be interpreted as being invisible and not visible, implicit and not explicit, hypothetical and not objective,personally unknown and not personally known.It's as simply as this.
Once this is clear for the SSPX team they can begin doctrinal talks.

CONTINUED
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/vatican-sspx-doctrinal-talks-second.html

Dan said...

I've said before, but the Francis has made me think that this "church" not only is failing to teach and lead people to the Truth, but is actively promoting falsity. I don't foresee it getting better. Only worse, until those that have remained under whatever "pope" is elected by unfaithful Cardinals, find themselves indistinguishable from protestants.

Amazing change in my perspective under this evil Francis and his minions.

Anonymous said...

The Second Vatican Council ought to be known as the latrocinium secundum, after the first, the Second Council of Ephesus, at AD449, declared by a Catholic Pope, St. Leo the Great.

Anonymous said...

Pope Francis says: "Doctrine schmoctrine."

Catholic Mission said...

NOVEMBER 28, 2018
Oath of Fidelity of Bishops has become an Oath Supporting Modernism. It is infedelity with the past Magisterium
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/oath-of-fidelity-of-bishops-has-become.html

Peter Lamb said...

All the conciliar "popes" are demonstrable public heretics. An heretic can't be Pope. When will the SSPX ever recognize the Catholic obvious and renounce their ridiculous position? Archbishop Lefebvre would have been a sedevacantist years ago if he had lived a little longer.

Anonymous said...

I agree that the doctrinal question remains absolutely essential.
However, will the SSPX insist that Rome submit to the true teachings of the Catholic Church, and therefore adhere to proper doctrine? Or will the SSPX believe that it will suffice that they themselves will remain true to correct doctrine, but that Rome needn't adhere to correct doctrine? That was not the stance of Archbishop Lefebvre after the 1988 episcopal consecrations.

Archbishop Lefebvre, after the 1988 consecrations, said that Rome is in Apostasy, and that they must convert back to the Catholic Faith. He said that Rome is occupied by a Modernist sect. Before the 1988 episcopal consecrations, he was more willing to go and talk with Rome, but not after they deceived him in 1988. He was far more harsh toward them after that. He said, shortly before the 1988 consecrations, that he thought that Rome was waiting for him to die, and that's why they were holding off in giving him a bishop. Indeed, he lived for only another 2 1/2 years after the consecrations. The current leadership of the SSPX have forgotten the fight that Ap. Lefebvre was really engaged in. And Rome certainly hasn't become more traditional since then. On the contrary!

M. Ray

Anonymous said...

Peter Lamb:

No, the Archbishop would not have been a sedevacantist even in this present time. He was not an individualist, like American Sedevacantist Catholics. He was French, and a loyal son of the Church. He knew better than to take an imprudent approach to the problem of Modernism and the Papacy.

M. Ray

Tom A. said...

So loyal he disobeyed his Pope.

Anonymous said...

Tom A,

Flawed as he was, Pope John Paul ll was the Pope of the Catholic Church. Catholics don't usually refer to a Pope a being any one person's pope. Protestants, however, do phrase it this way, as you have done. That's to be expected, since they don't believe in the Papacy. We Catholics, however, do.

M. Ray

Anonymous said...

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/conservative-order-of-nuns-on-verge-of-destruction-following-vatican-interv

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Anonymous, Consider these ststements by the Archbishop:

Archbishop Lefebvre:
He was a good and holy man, but a missionary, not a theologian. He lacked self-confidence and flip-flopped a lot, often being self-contradictory. However, he made many sedevacantist statements, including that the NWO church was not Catholic; that Vatican II was a schismatic Council and that "the Chair of Peter and the positions of authority in Rome are occupied by antichrists." (http://inveritateblog.com/2015/07/29/christ-or-belial/).

Archbishop Lefebvre with regard to SSPX joining the NWO church:
"The Pope is more ecumenical than ever. All Council misconceptions continue to be developed and reaffirming ever more clearly. They hide less and less. It is inconceivable in every way that we can accept collaborate with such a hierarchy."
(Fideliter No. 79, January 1991.)

Q: But there are traditionalists who have made an agreement with Rome without conceding anything.
A: "That is false. They have waived their opportunity to oppose Rome. They must remain silent because of the favors that have been granted. Then they start to slip ever so slowly until they end up admitting the errors of Vatican II. It is a very dangerous situation. Such concessions Roma aim only to get the break with the SSPX traditionalists and submit to Rome."
(Fideliter No. 79, January 1991, shortly before his death in March 1991.)

"Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. These are not words in the air. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy… They have left the Church… This is sure, sure, sure." (Retreat Conference, September 4, 1987, Ecône)

Father Regis de Cacqueray, SSPX, District Superior of France:
"Pope Francis, like all his predecessors since the Council, is a revolutionary. He is in rupture with the immutable Tradition of the Church and he is teaching in its stead a new doctrine that is poisoning souls."
(http://sspx.org/en/keeping-calm-amid-storm)

Bishop Fellay: Described pope Francis as a "genuine modernist".
(2013 Angelus Conference in Kansas City.)

I have no doubt that had Abp. Lefebvre lived longer and seen what we have seen, he would have formally declared sedevacantism the only true Catholic response to the current situation.
Now let's look at the current SSPX and more especially at Bishop Fellay.
i. Their leaders have rejected the NWO church as false and manned by an heretical hierarchy.(Above quotes.)
ii. Their ecclesiology, especially with regard to the Papacy, is ludicrous, novel, without foundation in and contrary to Catholic doctrine.
iii. They pray in unity with acknowledged heretics, which is absolutely forbidden by the Catholic Church.
iv. The money for Econe came from the jews (Rothchilds.)

THERE IS NO LOGICAL, CATHOLIC REASON FOR THEM TO SEEK UNION WITH THE CHURCH OF LUCIFER WHICH THEY RECOGNIZE AS SUCH!

I believe that Bp. Fellay serves as CONTROLLED OPPOSITION.
i. He neither joins the NWO church, nor severs the SSPX from it. He dithers along indefinitely - thus keeping many traditional Catholics WITHIN THE AMBIT of the NWO church.
ii. He recognizes the heretical antipopes as true Popes, thus affording respectability and huge power to them in the eyes of millions. The SSPX, I predict, will NEVER join Rome. The search for unity is a sham. The pretense of orthodoxy keeps all those traditional Catholics in the SSPX. Those traditionalist would leave the SSPX in droves, if the SSPX was seen as part of the NWO church, which would gradually gobble it up anyway, as predicted above by Abp. Lefebvre.
Neither Rome, nor Bp. Fellay would want that to happen. It serves NWO interests much better to maintain the status quo. The NWO church receives recognition as the Catholic Church; Bergoglio receives recognition as a true Pope; The SSPX continues to serve as controlled opposition, thus keeping all those trads in the ambit of the NWO. I'll bet you a sixpack, union will never occur.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Anonymous:

Archbishop Lefebvre:
“The Church which affirms such errors is both schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is therefore not Catholic.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)
“To whatever extent pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (July 29, 1976, Reflections on the Suspension a divinis)
“I should be very happy to be excommunicated from this Conciliar Church… It is a Church that I do not recognize. I belong to the Catholic Church.” (Interview July 30 1976, published in Minute, no. 747) [ There are plenty more quotes to the same effect.]

Bishop Fellay:
"What Gospel does [Francis] have? Which Bible does he have to say such things. It’s horrible. What has this to do with the Gospel? With the Catholic Faith. That’s pure Modernism, my dear brethen. We have in front of us a genuine Modernist."
(Bp. Bernard Fellay, qtd. in John Vennari, “Bishop Fellay on Pope Francis”, Catholic Family News, Oct. 14, 2013)

So Bp. Fellay recognises bergoglio as a modernist heretic and consequently not a Member of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church, yet he wants to join this heretical, non-Catholic church? I don't get it. Of course he will bring a lot of Traditionalists back into the bosom of mother NWO church and satan will rejoice.

Surely he should rather listen to St. Paul and St. John who told us what to do with angels who preached a different gospel?

"Have I not hated them, O Lord, that hated thee: and pine away because of thy enemies? I have hated them with a perfect hatred: and they are become enemies to me." Psalm 138:22 Rather ignore the psalmist?

“The crowning disloyalty to God is heresy. It is the sin of sins, the very loathsomest of things which God looks down upon in this malignant world. Yet how little do we understand of its excessive hatefulness!… “We look at it, and are calm. We touch it and do not shudder. We mix with it, and have no fear. We see it touch holy things, and we have no sense of sacrilege… “Our charity is untruthful because it is not severe; and it is unpersuasive, because it is not truthful… Where there is no hatred of heresy, there is no holiness. (Fr. Faber.) Fr. Faber was a neo-Pelagian?

I wonder if Bp. Fellay knows these things and many other I haven't quoted?
So Christ has something with belial after all?

Peter Lamb said...

Dear M. Ray,

Please watch Archbishop Lefebvre Sedevacantist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqgcCujfQF0

Please read Pro-sedevacantism Quotes from ABp. Lefebvre by John Daly.

http://www.fathercekada.com/2012/09/04/pro-sedevacantism-quotes-from-abp-lefebvre/

I doubt you will disagree with me after doing so. I have more quotes should you require them. :)

Anonymous said...

Peter Lamb,

Have you read a book by Fr. Chazal called, "Contra Cekadum?"

It's a very good refutation of Fr. Cekada's extreme views. Unfortunately the first printing of the book has sold out. Hopefully there will be a second printing. You can read about it on the Chant CD website.

https://www.chantcd.com/index.php/Contra-Cekadam

M. Ray

Catholic Mission said...

NOVEMBER 29, 2018
Sedevacantist Bishop Donald Sanborn and Fr.Anthony Cekada at the Most Holy Trinity Seminary, in Florida, USA offer Holy Mass in sacrilege
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/bishop-donald-sanborn-and-franthony.html

Peter Lamb said...

Dear M. Ray, No, I have not read it. Thanks for letting me know about it and I will read it.

I don't feel comfortable with your comment of Father having EXTREME views. No CATHOLIC can have EXTREME views. The Catholic Church is indefectible and infallible. It is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error. The Pope, (a real one), speaks with the authority of Christ. Our Faith is clearly defined, absolute and unambiguous.

Therefore, a Catholic may know the Faith, or be partially, or completely ignorant of it, but the Faith is One, Catholic, Holy and Apostolic. One is a Catholic, or one is not a Catholic. The Faith must be accepted in its entirety, or not at all. No one may have "views" regarding the Faith.

So, there can be no such thing as a "liberal" Catholic, a "moderate" Catholic, or an "extreme" Catholic. The Faith is not open to personal, or individual interpretation. There is no such thing as a "traditionalist", a semi-traditionalist, or a "neo-traditionalist - there is only a Catholic. All unchanged, or nothing. Father Cekada is a Catholic Priest.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Lionel,

I have no truck with Feeneyites, or Feeneyism. Come back to the Church. You could do so much good on the right track. May God bless you. :)

Tom A. said...

We are all flawed. What you need to prove is that JP2 professed the Catholic Faith. There is an abundance of evidence that proves he professed a faith different from the one handed down by the Apostles. The man simply was not Catholic. He was a man of the council and an ecumenist and an heretic.

Anonymous said...

Peter Lamb, Fr.

Cekada doesn't have extreme views? Wait….doesn't he believe that it's a dogmatic fact that the see is vacant, and that ALL Catholics are required to believe this? Doesn't he believe that in order to be Catholic, one must be a sedevacantist?

M. Ray

Peter Lamb said...

Dear M. Ray, It's not a dogmatic fact because no Pope has formally promulgated the vacant seat as a dogma of Faith, (which is impossible because the seat is vacant), but that the seat is vacant of a Pope formaliter is a certainty according to Catholic doctrine and Magisterial teaching. Actually, yes. An informed, faithful Catholic is a sedevacantist. Those who recognize an heretic as Pope are in great error and are material heretics, (free of guilt), if they are unaware of their error and aiders and abettors of heretics if they are knowingly refuting Catholic doctrine on the matter.

So, Father's "views" are not extreme - they are Catholic truth.

"Doesn't he believe that in order to be Catholic, one must be a sedevacantist?"

No, he does not believe that. "Catholic sedevacantism" - my self-coined term for people like me and Father who are simply faithful traditional Catholics who practice the Faith of our fathers - know that sedevacantism is the best and proper Catholic response to our current situation. I say "Catholic sedes" to distinguish us from Feeneyites, those who sit around a farm table and elect a new "pope" and assorted lunatic fringe, who also declare the seat to be vacant. "Sedevacantism" is an unfortunate generic term which includes anybody who believes the seat to be vacant - Catholics and anybody else.

Millions of good, faithful Catholics are simply unaware, or uninformed, or ill informed about what has happened to the Church over the past 60 years. They attend the nwo church in all good faith and intent and certainly are and remain Catholics. Very few,( especially young) Catholics know Catholic doctrine after 60 years of judeo-masonic indoctrination. nwo church is all youngsters know. They are taught heresy in RE class and seminary. They are guiltless of sin. They are Catholics.

Tom A. said...

In the Catholic world, it is the Pope who insists that others submit to the true Catholic Faith. The mere fact that you correctly observe that the SSPX has to insist that Rome submit to the Catholic Faith shows that Rome is not Catholic.

Tom A. said...

Peter, all you write is correct except I do not believe that all conciliarists are feenyites. I have not heard that David Bawden aka Pope Michael has ever held the Feenyite position. In fact, he has the right Catholic idea. If the See is Vacant, then a new Pope should be elected. Yes, there's the whole sede divide over the thesis but at some point soon they should sit down and elect a True Pope.

One thing I would like to ask Anon 4:44 is that in order to be Catholic one needs to be in union with the Roman Pontiff (de fide). Are you in union with Bergolio? Do you share the same Catholic Faith with Bergolio? If not, then you both cannot be Catholic.

Peter Lamb said...

Dear Tom, I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. I don't think any conciliarists are Feeneyites. Feeneyites are a distinctive heretical group and have nothing to do with conciliarists. However, sadly, they and the loons are all lumped with us "Catholics
sedes" because we are all sedevacantists - i.e. we all recognize that the conciliar "popes" are false.

Catholic Mission said...

Peter Lamb said...
Dear Lionel,
I have no truck with Feeneyites, or Feeneyism. Come back to the Church. You could do so much good on the right track. May God bless you. :)
________________________

I depends upon what you mean by Feeneyites.
St. Thomas Aquinas was a Feeneyite since he affirmed the strict interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and also mentioned hypothetical cases of a person in invincible ignorance and and another hypothetical cases of someone who desired the baptism of water, both of which are not exceptions to extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
Invisible cases of the baptism of desire(BOD), baptism of blood(BOB) and being saved in invincible ignorance(I.I) cannot be visible exceptions to Feeneyite EENS. The Letter of the Holy Office 1949 made an objective mistake.

Then the Catechism of Pope Pius X was also Feeneyite since it said that all need to be members of the Catholic Church for salvation and it did not mention any exception. This Catechism for example did mention being saved in invincible ignorance, which is not an exception. Since hypothetical cases cannot be seen objectively seem in the present times, for them to be exceptions to EENS amd of someone is not there he is not an exception.

Then Vatican Council II is Feeneyite since it says all need faith and baptism for salvation and the Council does not mention any exceptions.Hypothetical cases of LG 8,LG 14,LG 16, UR 3, NA 2, GS 22 etc cannot be objective examples of salvation outside the Church. Since if they did exist they would only be known to God. For us humans there are no such cases for example in 2018.There were none in 1965 or 1949.

So the Church is still Feeneyite as was the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century.It is a section of the traditionalits and sedevacantists who are outside the Church with heresy.
Since they reject EENS by assuming non existing cases of BOD, BOB and I.I are exceptions.
They reject the Nicene Creed by assuming there are three or more known baptisms and all without the baptism of water.
They reject the Athanasius Creed which says outside the Church there is no salvation. For them outside the Church there is known salvation.
They do not interpret the Apostles Creed like the Magisterium in the 16th century.
They reject the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX( ecumenism of return) by assuming that the Catechism of Pope Pius X contradicts it with visible and known cases, of non Catholics saved outside the Church in invincible ignorance etc.
So it is important to clarify what do you mean by Feeneyism. Since the St. Benedict Centers, the communities of Fr. Leonard Feeney, traditionalists, also make some of these errors.1
However I agree with Bro. Andre Marie MICM when he says that to be a Catholic is to be a Feeneyite.
-Lionel Andrades
1
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/11/prior-in-scandal.html
https://eucharistandmission.blogspot.com/2018/12/scandal.html


Catholic Mission said...

Peter Lamb said...
Dear Tom, I think you misinterpreted what I wrote. I don't think any conciliarists are Feeneyites. Feeneyites are a distinctive heretical group and have nothing to do with conciliarists. However, sadly, they and the loons are all lumped with us "Catholics
sedes" because we are all sedevacantists - i.e. we all recognize that the conciliar "popes" are false.

Lionel:
I am a Feeneyite.
I accept Vatican Council II.
I also accept Pope Francis as pope.
I also affirm the baptism of desire, baptism of blood and being saved in invincible ignorance.
I affirm other magisterial documents(All the Creeds, Vatican Council II and the Catechisms).
I attend Mass in English, Italian and Latin.
For me the missionaries and Magisterium of the 16th century were also Feeneyite.So was St. Thomas Aquinas and the popes.
The popes affirmed the strict interpretation of the dogma EENS like me and BOD, BOB and I.I were hypothetical cases for them, and for me, and so BOD,BOB and I.I were not exceptions to what the secular media call the rigorist interpretation of the dogma EENS.
-Lionel Andrades